Saturday, June 26, 2004
Living within constraints
One thing the Bush administration has a difficult time understanding (or at least admitting openly) is that most decisions are made under constraints. Scarcity is the basic fact of life under the sun; indeed, it is the single most important and indispensible assumption in economic theory. So why can't the Bushies recognize it?
On fiscal policy, the Bush approach has always been you can have your cake and eat it too. They promise massive tax cuts, increased domestic spending, and more money for entitlements. But you can't have it all. Supply-side "theory" in general falls prey to the same fallacy. Of course, modern Republicans *know* that they can't really have it all; they think they are going to "starve the beast" of government. In the meantime, though, they are feeding it faster and faster, and running up a big tab, yet with fairly little positive to show for it.
On foreign policy, the neocons prove to be counterparts of the supply siders: they think American might is so great, we can fight all our enemies (and potential enemies, and future enemies) at once, in the manner of our choosing. This has turned out to be a colossal mistake. As Max points out, the Bushies can't tell the different between the enemies out to kill us, and the enemies who just want to be left alone. By picking fights with the latter, we empower groups like al-Qaeda (you know, the real enemy? the ones who killed 3,000 Americans?).
What's more by showing our bellicosity *and* getting bogged down in Iraq, we've given the two other "Axis of Evil" states the impetus and opportunity to nuclearize. North Korea is a much bigger threat than Saddam was, and Bush's policy has made it much worse. (Now, Bush is admitting Clinton was right all along---but in the interim 20 months, NK has probably become a nuclear power).
On the environment, Bush says pump the oil faster, and let the future sort itself out. Once again, he has no idea what it means to make choices under scarcity; no clue what it really means to conserve or be prudent.
At bottom, the modern day Republicans have missed the key lesson of the first day of Econ 101. They instead they mooch off the future, piling up debts, enemies, military committments, and resource shortages that will haunt responsible Americans for years. It's time to take the checkbook away. These aren't conservatives in any sense of the word. They are instead the Deadbeat Party.
In contrast, the Democrats, starting with Clinton, have been the model of responsibility and prudence on fiscal and foreign policy. They eliminated the deficit; they avoided wars through effective diplomacy; they made the world a safer and more prosperous place. Had they not had the Republican albatross around their necks, they would have no doubt also made dramatic improvements in environmental stability and economic security for all Americans---because, unlike the Republicans, they know how to get something of value for the money they do spend. Which would you rather buy, a pointless war or health care for everyone?
That's the vision of the Democratic party. And the Republicans call it "tax and spend". But we know all about the way they manage things, given the chance. Its time to remove the Deadbeats from the Oval Office and from Congress. We're in a hell of a mess, and we know who made it. Give the Dems a nice cushy majority in both houses, and I suspect that in eight years, we'll be looking back, as we did in 2000, wondering how things got so good. I'd sure like the chance to feel that way---I took Clinton for granted last time, wishing he had done more for the poor, for the environment, and for the people of Rwanda. But with hindsight, I see that he was under seige by a group who would sacrifice the public good for power, and that it is Clinton's enemies, rather than Clinton, who should shoulder the blame for his shortcomings.
On fiscal policy, the Bush approach has always been you can have your cake and eat it too. They promise massive tax cuts, increased domestic spending, and more money for entitlements. But you can't have it all. Supply-side "theory" in general falls prey to the same fallacy. Of course, modern Republicans *know* that they can't really have it all; they think they are going to "starve the beast" of government. In the meantime, though, they are feeding it faster and faster, and running up a big tab, yet with fairly little positive to show for it.
On foreign policy, the neocons prove to be counterparts of the supply siders: they think American might is so great, we can fight all our enemies (and potential enemies, and future enemies) at once, in the manner of our choosing. This has turned out to be a colossal mistake. As Max points out, the Bushies can't tell the different between the enemies out to kill us, and the enemies who just want to be left alone. By picking fights with the latter, we empower groups like al-Qaeda (you know, the real enemy? the ones who killed 3,000 Americans?).
What's more by showing our bellicosity *and* getting bogged down in Iraq, we've given the two other "Axis of Evil" states the impetus and opportunity to nuclearize. North Korea is a much bigger threat than Saddam was, and Bush's policy has made it much worse. (Now, Bush is admitting Clinton was right all along---but in the interim 20 months, NK has probably become a nuclear power).
On the environment, Bush says pump the oil faster, and let the future sort itself out. Once again, he has no idea what it means to make choices under scarcity; no clue what it really means to conserve or be prudent.
At bottom, the modern day Republicans have missed the key lesson of the first day of Econ 101. They instead they mooch off the future, piling up debts, enemies, military committments, and resource shortages that will haunt responsible Americans for years. It's time to take the checkbook away. These aren't conservatives in any sense of the word. They are instead the Deadbeat Party.
In contrast, the Democrats, starting with Clinton, have been the model of responsibility and prudence on fiscal and foreign policy. They eliminated the deficit; they avoided wars through effective diplomacy; they made the world a safer and more prosperous place. Had they not had the Republican albatross around their necks, they would have no doubt also made dramatic improvements in environmental stability and economic security for all Americans---because, unlike the Republicans, they know how to get something of value for the money they do spend. Which would you rather buy, a pointless war or health care for everyone?
That's the vision of the Democratic party. And the Republicans call it "tax and spend". But we know all about the way they manage things, given the chance. Its time to remove the Deadbeats from the Oval Office and from Congress. We're in a hell of a mess, and we know who made it. Give the Dems a nice cushy majority in both houses, and I suspect that in eight years, we'll be looking back, as we did in 2000, wondering how things got so good. I'd sure like the chance to feel that way---I took Clinton for granted last time, wishing he had done more for the poor, for the environment, and for the people of Rwanda. But with hindsight, I see that he was under seige by a group who would sacrifice the public good for power, and that it is Clinton's enemies, rather than Clinton, who should shoulder the blame for his shortcomings.
